Started By
Message
re: Is Alabama football the single greatest sports program in history?
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:33 pm to IAmReality
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:33 pm to IAmReality
Alabama football is the best, but not the greatest, to be Great!, Honor is required.
0
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:33 pm to IAmReality
hahaha y'all are way too much today
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:37 pm to genro
This was just a playful troll thread...
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:38 pm to IAmReality
No. Jesus
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:05 pm to IAmReality
Yankees.
I hate the Yankees.
I hate the Yankees.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:11 pm to IAmReality
Princeton??
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:24 pm to aspiclark
quote:
Not really true but whatever.
During the 3 out of 4 world cups (58-70), South America had Chile place 3rd, Argentina advance to two different quarter finals, Uruguay advance to a quarter and place 4th in another, and Peru advanced to a quarterfinal. They had 7/10 different teams make the final tournament. They had four different teams advance to the quarters.
I am honestly curious, why you think qualifying was so much more difficult for the contemporaries. Looking at a matrix, you have a stronger Columbia and Ecuador but Peru and Bolivia fell off the map.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:44 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
UCLA - basketball
USC - college baseball
1and 1. Then Yankees.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:44 pm to bisonduck
It's simple math; it's the same reason it's much easier to qualify out of South America today.
consider in 1950 there were only 8 South American teams that even tried to qualify, competing for 4 spots. today there are only 10, competing for 4.5. and of course Brazil was going to make it. look at their population.
you compare that to Europe who in 1950 had 29 teams competing for only 7 spots. today there are 53 European teams competing for 13 spots.
surely you see my point? it's not to say that the great South American teams were bad. it's just saying that giving them a bunch of credit for qualifying is stupid in a debate like this. just like it's stupid for giving teams credit for making it further in the tournament in those years when the tournament was half the size it is today.
consider in 1950 there were only 8 South American teams that even tried to qualify, competing for 4 spots. today there are only 10, competing for 4.5. and of course Brazil was going to make it. look at their population.
you compare that to Europe who in 1950 had 29 teams competing for only 7 spots. today there are 53 European teams competing for 13 spots.
surely you see my point? it's not to say that the great South American teams were bad. it's just saying that giving them a bunch of credit for qualifying is stupid in a debate like this. just like it's stupid for giving teams credit for making it further in the tournament in those years when the tournament was half the size it is today.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:46 pm to IAmReality
2nd to the Yankees, just ahead of UK in Basketball.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:04 pm to aspiclark
quote:
you compare that to Europe who in 1950 had 29 teams competing for only 7 spots. today there are 53 European teams competing for 13 spots.
Jesus, dude, that because half of the teams in Europe are fiefdoms.
You're being obtuse. It's not like I am pulling something out of my arse - it's been referred as the toughest qualifiers by more than myself.
Part of that is because of Brazil but then again part of the SEC mystique is Alabama.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:05 pm to IAmReality
not
even
close
even
close
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:07 pm to bisonduck
I'm really not being obtuse. the math speaks for itself. that you are trying to act like fricking Brazil qualifying for the World Cup is an accomplishment is absurd.
and there isn't an analyst, player, or coach alive who doesn't agree it's substantially more difficult to qualify out if Europe.
in addition to much better odds btw, again consider that more than half of the population of South America lives in Brazil. what an accomplishment that they always qualify!
and there isn't an analyst, player, or coach alive who doesn't agree it's substantially more difficult to qualify out if Europe.
in addition to much better odds btw, again consider that more than half of the population of South America lives in Brazil. what an accomplishment that they always qualify!
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:12 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
2nd to the Yankees, just ahead of UK in Basketball.
Lets dig a little deeper shall we?
Because of the resource demand college football is much harder to compete in so fewer teams should accumulate more Natty's. Also, for the majority of Power 5 type football you had no playoff to settle the debate on the field for college football, but starting in the post war era you had such a playoff for college basketball.
(16) Alabama = 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015
(8) Kentucky = 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012
Alabama has 16 MNC's / Kentucky has 8 NC's
To get close to equal start with only post WWII Natty's as NCAA tourney did not exist.
Alabama subtracts (5) in 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, and 1941
Alabama now has 11 MNC's / Kentucky has 8 NC's
Now deduct years Alabama did not get both UPI + AP or won BCS post 1998
1965, 1973, and 1978
Alabama now has 8 MNC's / Kentucky has 8 NC's
Looks pretty even but say you look at Final Fours and Kentucky has been to 15 of them, could Alabama claim the same? If the CFP had existed in the late 40's, would Alabama have been to 15 by now?
I would say both are dynasties and possibly the 2 best in all of college sports in the big schools category, but possibly Kentucky would have an edge by actually playing the most years in the Top 4 at the end of the season. It is a bit staggering to think that UK has been in about 55 NCAA tournaments in just over 70 years. Pretty good indication for UK as the greatest sports program in history behind the Yankee's.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:16 pm to aspiclark
quote:
I'm really not being obtuse. the math speaks for itself. that you are trying to act like fricking Brazil qualifying for the World Cup is an accomplishment is absurd.
and there isn't an analyst, player, or coach alive who doesn't agree it's substantially more difficult to qualify out if Europe.
So, all teams are equal.
You can throw out half the teams in Europe. Off the top of my head Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, etc. are some of the worst teams in the entire world and lose 10-0 playing bunker ball. If it's about fricking math than North American qualifying would be harder than South American.
Also, it's been referred to as the toughest qualifiers in the world. Here is one pundit.
Also, qualifying isn't what makes them dynasty. You acted like the WC was a crapshoot and played once every four years. It's an ongoing tournament that covers the time period. Bama has to play Vanderbilt and directional school of the blind to get the ultimate prize.
I am saying that a four year season makes it more difficult. You aren't. We disagree.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:18 pm to bisonduck
nobody said all teams were equal. nobody is even saying they're not the most successful national team of all time.
I simply said that the fact that they always qualify is literally meaningless to me and many others for obvious reasons. of course they do.
this is a very odd argument to me. are you Brazilian or something?
I simply said that the fact that they always qualify is literally meaningless to me and many others for obvious reasons. of course they do.
this is a very odd argument to me. are you Brazilian or something?
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:21 pm to aspiclark
Yankees, lakers, Celtics, could argue Cards also.. Ucla in bball as well
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:23 pm to bisonduck
teams like Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay Bolivia, and Venezuela - 50% of conmebol btw; the 3 teams you listed comprise less than 6% of uefa - haven't exactly always been powerhouses btw. I know they've shown flashes but the point stands. You are delusional if you think this is even remotely comparable to qualifying in uefa.
and then combine that with the math I posted earlier, which says 4.5 out of the 10 teams get in. so half the teams are minnows, and half the teams get in. and more than half the people on the continent live in brazil.
surely you're not so far gone you can't see my obvious point. give them credit for winning the World Cup; gimme a break hyping up that they always qualify.
and then combine that with the math I posted earlier, which says 4.5 out of the 10 teams get in. so half the teams are minnows, and half the teams get in. and more than half the people on the continent live in brazil.
surely you're not so far gone you can't see my obvious point. give them credit for winning the World Cup; gimme a break hyping up that they always qualify.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:24 pm to aspiclark
quote:
I simply said that the fact that they always qualify is literally meaningless to me and many others for obvious reasons. of course they do
I literally think no one else has said it's meaningless but you. Literally... I pretty much think people don't care. Which shows the myopia of America.
quote:
I simply said that the fact that they always qualify is literally meaningless to me and many others for obvious reasons. of course they do.
They are the only team in the entire world to qualify for every final. So, it's not meaningless. However, it also not the only thing I said that makes them a dynasty.
quote:
this is a very odd argument to me. are you Brazilian or something?
Nope. Lived in Argentina.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:27 pm to bisonduck
not even the best dynasty in sports history
Boston Celtics
UCLA BBall run
Spain National team Euro World Euro
Boston Celtics
UCLA BBall run
Spain National team Euro World Euro
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News